Coordination and control in project-based work: digital objects and infrastructures for delivery
Whyte, J. and Lobo, S. (2010) Coordination and control in project-based work: digital objects and infrastructures for delivery. Construction Management and Economics, 28 (6). pp. 557-567. ISSN 0144-6193
To link to this article DOI: 10.1080/01446193.2010.486838
A major infrastructure project is used to investigate the role of digital objects in the coordination of engineering design work. From a practice-based perspective, research emphasizes objects as important in enabling cooperative knowledge work and knowledge sharing. The term ‘boundary object’ has become used in the analysis of mutual and reciprocal knowledge sharing around physical and digital objects. The aim is to extend this work by analysing the introduction of an extranet into the public–private partnership project used to construct a new motorway. Multiple categories of digital objects are mobilized in coordination across heterogeneous, cross-organizational groups. The main findings are that digital objects provide mechanisms for accountability and control, as well as for mutual and reciprocal knowledge sharing; and that different types of objects are nested, forming a digital infrastructure for project delivery. Reconceptualizing boundary objects as a digital infrastructure for delivery has practical implications for management practices on large projects and for the use of digital tools, such as building information models, in construction. It provides a starting point for future research into the changing nature of digitally enabled coordination in project-based work.
Bechky, B A (2003) Object lessons: Workplace artifacts as representations of occupational jurisdiction. American Journal of Sociology, 109(3), 720-52. Blackler, F and Engeström, Y (2005) Special issue on the rise of objects in the study of organizations. Organization, 12(3). Boland, R J, Lyytinen, K and Yoo, Y (2007) Wakes of innovation in project networks: The case of digital 3-D representations in architecture, engineering, and construction. Organization Science, 18(4), 631-47. Bowker, G and Star, S L (1999) Sorting Things Out. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Cacciatori, E (2008) Memory objects in project environments: Storing, retrieving and adapting learning in project-based firms. Research Policy, 37(9), 1591-601. Carlile, P R (2002) A pragmatic view of knowledge and boundaries: Boundary objects in new product development. Organization Science, 13(4), 442-55. Carlile, P R (2004) Transferring, translating and transforming: An integrative relational approach to sharing and assessing knowledge across boundaries. Organization Science, 15(5), 555-68. Chrisman, N (1999) Trading Zones or Boundary Objects: Understanding Incomplete Translations of Technical Expertise, 4S - Society for the Social Studies of Science, October 28th-31st, San Diego CA. Clegg, S (1989) Radical revisions: Power, discipline and organizations, Organization Studies, 10(1), 97-115. Collins H, Evans R and Gorman M (2007) Trading zones and interactional expertise, Studies In History and Philosophy of Science, 38(4), 657-66. D’Adderio, L (2003) Configuring software, reconfiguring memories: The influence of integrated systems on the reproduction of knowledge and routines. Industrial and Corporate Change, 12(2), 321-50. Dougherty, D (2001) Reimagining the differentiation and integration of work for sustained product innovation. Organization Science, 12(5), 612-31. Eckert, C and Boujut, J-F (2003) The role of objects in design co-operation: Communication through physical or virtual objects. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 12(2), 145-51. Edwards, P N, Jackson, S J, Bowker, G C and Knobel, C P (2007) Understanding Infrastructure: Dynamics, tensions, and design. Ann Arbor, MI: DeepBlue. Edwards, P N, Bowker, G C, Jackson, S J and Williams, R (2009) Introduction: An agenda for infrastructure studies. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 10(5), 364-74. Eisenhardt, K M (1989) Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532-50. Eisenhardt, K M and Graebner, M E (2007) Theory building from cases: Opportunities and challenges. Academy of Management Journal, 50(1), 25-32. Erdogan, B, Anumba, C J, Bouchlaghem, N M and Nielsen, Y (2008) Collaboration environments for construction: Implementation case studies. ASCE Journal of Management in Engineering, 24(4), 234-44. Eriksson-Zetterquist, U, Lindberg, K and Styhre, A (2009) When the good times are over: Professionals encountering new technology. Human Relations, 62(8), 1145-70. Ewenstein, B and Whyte, J (2009) Knowledge practices in design: The role of visual representations as ‘epistemic objects’. Organization Studies, 30(1), 7-30. Fischer, M and Drogemuller, R (2009) Virtual design and construction. In: Newton, P, Hampson, K and Drogemuller, R (Eds.), Technology, Design and Process Innovation in the Built Environment, pp. 293-318. Abingdon, UK: Taylor and Francis. Forgues, D, Koskela, L and Lejeune, A (2009) Information technology as boundary object for transformational learning. Journal of Information Technology in Construction, 14, 48-58. Gal, U, Lyytinen, K and Yoo Y (2008) The dynamics of IT boundary objects, information infrastructures, and organisational identities: the introduction of 3D modelling technologies into the architecture, engineering, and construction industry, European Journal of Information Systems, 17(3), 290-304. Galison, P (1996) Computer simulations and the trading zone. In: Galison, P and Stump, D J (Eds.), The Disunity of Science. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Georg, S and Tryggestad, K (2009) On the emergence of roles in construction: The qualculative role of project management Construction Management and Economics, 27(10), 969-81. Gherardi, S and Nicolini, D (2000) To transfer is to transform: The circulation of safety knowledge. Organization, 7(2), 329-48. Harty, C (2005) Innovation in construction: A sociology of technology approach. Building Research and Information, 33(6), 512-22. Harvey F and Chrisman N (1998) Boundary objects and the social construction of GIS technology, Environment and Planning A, 30(9), 1683-94. Henderson, K (1991) Flexible sketches and inflexible data bases: Visual communication, conscription devices, and boundary objects in design engineering. Science, Technology and Human Values, 16(4), 448-73. Jarzabkowski, P and Seidl, D (2008) The role of meetings in the social practice of strategy. Organization Studies, 29(11), 1391-426. Knorr Cetina, K (1999) Epistemic Cultures: How the sciences make knowledge. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Lawrence, P R and Lorsch, J W (1967) Differentiation and integration in complex organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 12(1), 1-30. Leonardi, P M and Bailey, D E (2008) Transformational technologies and the creation of new work practices: Making implicit knowledge explicit in task-based offshoring. MIS Quarterly, 32(2), 411-36. Levina, N and Vaast, E (2005) The emergence of boundary spanning competence in practice: Implications for the implementation and use of information systems. MIS Quarterly, 29(2), 335-63. Orlikowski, W J (2007) Sociomaterial practices: Exploring technology at work. Organization Studies, 28(9), 1435-48. Pettigrew, A M (1985) Contextualist research and the study of organizational change process. In: Mumford, E, Hirschheim, R, Fitzgerald, G and Wood-Harper, A T (Eds.), Research Methods in Information Systems, pp. 53-78. Oxford, UK: New Holland. Pettigrew, A M, Woodman, R W and Cameron, K S (2001) Studying organizational change and development: Challenges for future research. Academy of Management Journal, 44(4), 697-713. Pipek, V and Wulf, V (2009) Infrastructuring: Toward an integrated perspective on the design and use of information technology. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 10(5), 447-73. Rheinberger, H-J (1997) Toward a History of Epistemic Things: Synthesizing proteins in the test tube. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Sapsed, J and Salter, A J (2004) Postcards from the edge: Local communities, global programs and boundary objects. Organization Studies, 25(9), 1515-34. Shen, G, Brandon, P and Baldwin, A (Eds.) (2009) Collaborative Construction Information Management. London, UK: Spon. Star, S L and Griesemer, J R (1989) Institutional ecology, ‘translations’, and boundary objects: Amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s museum of vertebrate zoology, 1907 - 1939. Social Studies of Science, 19(3), 387-420. Taylor, J E (2007) Antecedents of successful three-dimensional computer-aided design implementation in design and construction networks. Journal of Construction Engineering & Management, 133(12), 993-1002. Thomas, R, Hardy, C and Sargent, L (2007) Artifacts in Interaction: The production and politics of boundary objects, Advanced Institute of Management (AIM) Research Paper 052, London, UK: AIM. Trompette P and Vinck D (2009) Revisiting the notion of boundary object, Revue d’Anthropologie des Connaissances, 3(1), 3-25. Van Marrewijk, A, Clegg, S R, Pitsis, T S and Veenswijk, M (2008) Managing public-private megaprojects: Paradoxes, complexity, and project design. International Journal of Project Management, 26(6), 591-600. Whyte, J K, Ewenstein, B, Hales, M and Tidd, J (2007) Visual practices, and the objects of design. Building Research and Information, 35(1), 18-27. Yakura, E K (2002) Charting time: Timelines as temporary boundary objects. Academy of Management Journal, 45(5), 956-70. Yin, R K (1994) Case Study Research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Zeiss, R and Groenewegen, P (2009) Engaging boundary objects in OMS and STS? Exploring the subtleties of layered engagement. Organization, 16(1), 81-100.
Centaur Editors: Update this record